Danish-Chilean artist,Marco Evaristti, made headlines and ruffled feathers with “Helena & El Pescador.” The piece debuted at the Trapholt museum in Kolding, Denmark, and consisted of goldfish swimming in ten Moulinex blenders. Visitors were given a choice of hitting the ON button and killing the fish, or leaving the button alone as a way of granting pardon.
The director of the gallery, Peter Meyer, was sued for the work because he would not unplug the blenders after police demanded it
According to new reports, there were even some viewers who turned the blender on, killing the goldfish. At this point, animal rights activists and policed intervened, quesioning the artistry of the exhibit and the artist.
From this incident, I even created a couple of questions:
Must art provoke emotion? If so, does it matter what type of emotion, good or bad? What if the art does not provoke emotion, is it still considered art? I believe in order for someone to identify with a piece of art, there must be a connection made, however the type of connection does not matter in my opinion.
What happens if art becomes unethical? Who defines the ethical limits placed on art? Putting ethical limits on arts becomes a problem because the ethics of individuals varies. What one may consider offensive or unethical, another may not.
Should there be a limit to freedom of expression? Art is meant to be artistic and creative, and individuals should be allowed to express their thoughts. However, this will be problematic when artists continue to torture and kill animals all in the nameof art. Although there are laws to protect this from happening, Marco was still able to do so.
What makes this exhibit different from individuals who abuse animals? Humans kill animals for food every day, why does this exhibit cause so much controversey when we do the same? Neither actions are ethical or moral, however we need food to survive, so in the case of feeding humans it is an exception to the rule.
What if a different animal was used instead of a fish? Perhaps a cat or dog? Cats and dogs have more of a emotional attachment to humans, there would most likely be more controversy around this incident if i were to happen.
What if this incident did not cause controversy for killing the fish, but because it made people feel uncomfortable? Just because one is uncomfortable, does that make it unethical or morally wrong?
Word Count: 415
TOK & Me 
it is wrong to say that we need to kill animals for their meat to survive as every living vegetarian on earth is a proof of that. killing animals for food and for this exhibition is both unnecessary and imoral.
LikeLike
While the exhibition is immoral, I would not say it is unnecessary. This exhibition is necessary to test individuals morality and their ethics. It says alot about an individual if they decide to push the blender on. This exhibition is only dangerous if individuals turn on the blender. Onlookers can obviously see that the fish are real, alive and swimming, as well as they can see that the blender is plugged in. Why would they push the button? Simply because these individuals morals and ethics are out of wack. And lets be clear, being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice, which does not necessarily benefit every individual. There is also research showing that living a vegetarian lifestlye or even pescatarian is not suitable enough to sustain pregnancy. Those individuals who are vegetarian lack certain vitamins and protein, which individuals need. Sure an individual can be a vegetarian, but is it really healthy for them? By the way, being vegetarian and killing animals to eat has nothing to do with the article.
LikeLike